Choose country

Christian leaders who uphold Genesis

Modern-era theologians and prominent church leaders from around the world affirm biblical creation (historical Genesis)

Published: 5 August 2014 (GMT+10)

Photo by Lukas Van DykeDr Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Seminary, Kentucky, supports the historicity of Genesis.

The modern creation movement is mostly driven by those with primarily scientific qualifications. Some of a theological bent argue that we scientists don’t understand the ‘genre’ of Genesis (i.e. we are theological ignoramuses) and that Genesis is not meant to be understood as history. In part answer to this, I have listed here just some of those with theological qualifications who have taken a public stand for understanding Genesis as straightforward history, just as we scientists do. Those listed represent a wide spectrum, from pastors and evangelists to professors of church history, theology, and Hebrew, and from various church affiliations.

(Note: this list is not meant to be exhaustive. So, the absence of names of staff from a given theological institution should not be read as meaning that there are none at that institution. Also, we will update this article periodically with additional names.)

(In alphabetical order)

Randy Alcorn, MA in Biblical Studies, author of Heaven, and president of Eternal Perspective Ministries. He became a biblical creationist because “the straightforward reading of the text seemed to me to say it’s a young earth.” He also believes that the problem of evil “cannot be properly understood without accepting Creation, the Fall, and Redemption as real history.”

Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He has published a commentary on Galatians (Evangelical Press) and many articles. He wrote: “… if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation.”

Dr Todd Beall, Professor of Old Testament, Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, MD, USA: “… if the inerrant Scripture in Gen 1 states that God created the world in six literal days, then why should we not simply accept it, rather than try to find all kinds of ways to explain it away? Sometimes the plain, simplest, most natural reading of the text is, indeed the best. Such is the case with Gen 1, despite all the attempts to explain it in some other, more complicated way.”

… if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer.

Joe Boot, Senior Pastor of Westminster Chapel in Toronto, the President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity and the former Executive Director of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) Canada; he continues to serve as an adjunct speaker with RZIM. He has authored, Searching for Truth, Why I Still Believe, and How then Shall We Answer? He is visiting lecturer at the Oxford Centre for Christian apologetics at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford England, and is a contributing author to the major apologetics volume Beyond Opinion. Pastor Boot said,

“Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.

“The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.

“I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”

Dr Steven Boyd, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, The Master’s Seminary (TMS). Qualifications: B.S., M.S., Drexel University, Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; M.Phil., Ph.D., Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion. Dr Boyd has shown, using a statistical comparison of verb type frequencies of historical and poetic Hebrew texts, that Genesis 1 is clearly historical narrative, not ‘poetry’. He concluded, “There is only one tenable view of its plain sense: God created everything in six literal days.”

Dr J. Ligon Duncan, Chancellor and CEO of the multi-campus Reformed Theological Seminary, USA. He is also the John E. Richards professor of systematic and historical theology at RTS in Jackson, Miss. His Ph.D. is from University of Edinburgh, New College (Scotland) in the field of Patristics.

Dr Kenneth Gentry, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Classical College, Elkton, Maryland. He co-authored Yea, Hath God Said? (see review) in which he makes it very clear that he stands for the time-honoured understanding of Genesis as history.

Dr David W. Hall, Senior Pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA), Powder Springs, Georgia, USA. He was also the Founder and Senior Fellow of the Kuyper Institute in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Dr Hall is the author or editor of over 20 books, including Holding Fast to Creation, and numerous essays. He is also co-author of Did God Create in Six Days? where he and Dr Joseph Pipa critique non-literal views of Genesis (see below).

Rev. Peter Hastie, Principal and Pastoral Dean at Presbyterian Theological College, Melbourne, Australia, where he lectures in systematic theology and apologetics. Dr Hastie takes a clear stand on the historicity of Genesis and its importance for the Gospel message of the New Testament.

Dr Joel D. Heck, Professor of Theology at Concordia University, Austin, Texas, author of the concise book In the Beginning God:Creation from God’s Perspective, defends the historicity of Genesis. He holds a Th.M. in Old Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity and a Th.D. in Exegetical Theology from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

Dr Francis Humphrey, former lecturer (retired) in Old Testament Studies in the Faculté de Théologie Évangélique de Montréal, Acadia University. He was also the Senior Pastor of The Peoples Church of Montreal, Canada, until illness forced him to retire. He has written on the meaning of yom (Hebrew for ‘day’) in Genesis 1, clearly showing his support for a literal creation week. His book Origins and Redemption (Word Alive Press, 2013), also makes very clear his position.

Dr Douglas Kelly, Jordan Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theology Seminary, in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. He wrote the book, Creation and Change, wherein he made a strong case for a historical Genesis.

D. James Kennedy (1930–2007), M.Div., was senior pastor at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Florida. He founded Knox Theological Seminary, Westminster Academy, and Evangelism Explosion International. He also was president of Creation Studies Institute. His strong stance for biblical creation is preserved in his sermons on creation versus evolution.

Herbert Carl Leupold (1891–1972) was professor of Old testament Exegesis in the Capital University Seminary, Colombus, Ohio. He authored the highly regarded Exposition of Genesis, Baker Book House, MI, 1942, where he said of Genesis, “The account as it stands expects the impartial reader to accept it as entirely literal and historical. The use made of it in the rest of Sacred Scriptures treats every part referred to as sober fact, not as a fancy-picture.”

Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981), famous British pastor and Bible teacher: “I would contend that the early chapters of Genesis, the first three chapters of Genesis, are given to us as history. We know that there are pictures and symbols in the Bible, and when the Bible uses symbol and parable it indicates that it is doing so, but when it presents something to us in the form of history, it requires us to accept it as history.”

Dr John Macarthur, President of The Master’s College, California, USA. Dr Macarthur authored The Battle for the Beginning, where he contended for the time-honoured grammatical-historical understanding of Genesis. In an interview he made his position very clear, saying, “Evangelicals need to recover their biblical convictions and creationism, and believe what God has plainly said—whether or not worldly minds approve of it.”

Dr Robert V. McCabe, M.Div., Th.M., Th.D., is on faculty at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (teaching Old Testament and Hebrew). He has written an in-depth defence of a literal understanding of the six days of creation week in the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. He says of the importance of Genesis: “Genesis is the foundation for the remaining 65 books of the Bible. It reveals a number of subjects that have an impact on people of all ages: God’s existence; His goodness in creating the heavens, the earth and all things in both over the space of six, consecutive normal days; His direct creation of His divine image bearers, the first human beings Adam and Eve, on Day 6; His appointment of Adam as vice-regent over creation; the Fall of Adam along with the resultant Curse on the created order; the global Flood in Noah’s day; the tower of Babel; and the birth of the Israelite nation.”

Dr Peter Masters is the pastor of Spurgeon’s famous Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, U.K. In a sermon delivered on 14 January 2014, Dr Masters said, “Everything has its foundation in this book [Genesis]… It’s a book of literal history; it’s presented in the Word of God as literal events, as history.” Dr Masters has been a consistent advocate of the historicity of Genesis.

The Genesis account also teaches that God’s judgment on that sin has cosmic effects. If you adhere to an old-earth position, you have a very difficult time explaining how the effects of the Fall—death, disease and suffering—show up long before Adam and Eve.

Dr Albert Mohler is President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kentucky, USA, and Professor of Theology. Dr Mohler recognizes that it is not just ‘evolution’ that is a problem for the Gospel, but the push to accept long ages: “The Genesis account also teaches that God’s judgment on that sin has cosmic effects. If you adhere to an old-earth position, you have a very difficult time explaining how the effects of the Fall—death, disease and suffering—show up long before Adam and Eve.”

Professor Dr Mart-Jan Paul, serves as Professor of Old Testament at the Christelijke Hogeschool Ede (Christian University of Applied Sciences) in Holland and as Professor of Old Testament at the Evangelical Theological Faculty at Leuven in Belgium. He studied theology at the University of Leiden and his doctoral thesis (Ph.D.) was on the history of exegesis, especially about the book of Deuteronomy.

Dr Joseph A. Pipa, Jr, President of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He is co-author of Did God Create in Six Days? where he critiques non-literal views of Genesis, particularly what is known as the Framework Hypothesis, which was invented in the 1920s.

Dr Pieter Siebesma, Professor in Religious Studies and Missiology at Evangelische Theologische Faculteit (EFT), Leuven, Belgium. He is a Hebrew scholar, with his doctorate from Rijksuniversiteit, Leiden, The Netherlands. He is an expert in Semitic languages and Judaica and has written dozens of articles, books and reviews in these fields. He also has degrees in science (Bachelors and Masters).

Charles (‘Chuck’) Smith (1927–2013), Senior Pastor, Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, California, and founder of the Calvary Chapel movement that numbers 1,500 congregations around the world. Pastor Chuck was a long-term encourager of biblical creation ministries, hosting many conferences, and speaking at them as well. In an obituary in the LA Times, Pastor Smith was called “one of the most influential figures in modern American Christianity.”

Hebrew professor, Dr Ting Wang, affirms the historicity of Genesis.

Dr Andrew Steinmann, Distinguished Professor of Theology and Hebrew, and University Marshal, Concordia University, Chicago. He has a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from the University of Michigan. He has written commentaries on several Old Testament books and many theological papers. He is a member of the National Association of Professors of Hebrew (USA). Dr Steinmann has no doubt that Genesis teaches that God created in “a succession of six solar days” and that it is meant to be understood as real history.

C. Jonathan Stephen, Principal of Wales Evangelical School of Theology (WEST), formerly Brynterion Bible College, where he teaches systematic theology and homiletics (the art of preaching). He is past President of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches in the U.K.

Dr Ting Wang lectures on biblical Hebrew at Stanford University in California. He has a M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary in California (Escondido), a doctorate in Biblical Studies at the Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion (Cincinnati, Ohio). Amongst many affirmations of the historicity of Genesis, Dr Wang said,

“Often, people will use the old argument that we should concentrate on preaching the Gospel, rather than get distracted by ‘side-issues’ such as Creation. But if we cannot believe the record of Creation, then why believe the record of the New Creation (‘if anyone is in Christ, he is a New Creation; the old is gone, the new has come’—2 Corinthians 5:17)?”

“If we cannot believe in the First Adam, why believe in the Last [1 Corinthians 15:45]? Death came through the First, life through the Last [1 Corinthians 15:21–22].”

Dr John Whitcomb, Old Testament theologian, and co-author with hydraulics engineer the late Dr Henry M. Morris of The Genesis Flood. No other single work before or since has so effectively encouraged Christians’ belief in the historicity of Genesis, and the divine inspiration, scientific accuracy, and authority of the Bible as a whole. Dr Whitcomb devoted his Th.D. thesis (Grace Theological Seminary) to defending flood geology. Dr Whitcomb also wrote The World that Perished, and commentaries on Daniel and Esther.

Dr Benno Zuiddam, research professor (extraordinary associate) for New Testament Studies, Greek and Church History at the faculty of Theology at North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. He has earned doctorates in the fields of the Classics and Theology. He also serves with Greenwich School of Theology (UK) as tutor for Ph.D. projects.

Dr Zuiddam made his view clear that Genesis is meant to be understood as literal history when he was interviewed for Creation magazine. Dr Zuiddam explains that Genesis “is the account of the beginning, not only of this world, but also of God’s relationship with mankind. It teaches us about an intrinsically good God and a beautiful creation that was messed up by Adam’s sin. It tells about a loving God who didn’t give up on His creation, who singled out the families of Noah and later on Abraham, when the world at large was not interested in serving Him.”

He is an expert in church history and he is clear that the church has generally understood that “God created this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve.”

Conclusion

All those mentioned above are ‘evangelical’ scholars; those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. To them we might add the testimony of non-evangelical experts in Hebrew, such as Oxford University’s Professor James Barr, who clearly stated that the intention of the author(s) of Genesis 1–11 meant what was written to be understood as history (six literal days of creation, global Flood of Noah, a chronology of the world from the beginning). Other professors at leading secular universities agree with Professor Barr.

It is clear how Genesis is meant to be understood; as history (a record of events that really happened in time and space). It is also clear that it has been understood that way almost universally until modern times.

Readers’ comments

A very encouraging list and I will look out for these ministers materials. Dr John Macarthur and R.C Sproul's materials have helped me tremendously on Biblical Creation. The Lord brought me to Him about three years ago at age 30 so I am a relatively new believer. I must say Billy Crone of Niagra Frontier Bible church and getalife ministries have teachings on Creation and the fulfilling of prophesies that have been inspirational and enlightening too. I find his enthusiasm helps to motivate my hunger for God's Word. I was taught evolution at school but I never saw transitions so couldn't buy in to it. Now my being a believer means Creation seems obvious to me - but even this is through God's grace. I know some believers who seem to think Creation doesn't really matter but for me having what I believe to be a full picture is so satisfying and beautiful.

Oh that this list were many times longer! Even if Genesis 1-3 wasn't able to stand alone, (and it is!), there is so much elsewhere in the Word of God to make it abundantly clear that those early chapters of the Bible are describing literal history (Exodus 20 & Matthew 19 just for starters).
This needs to be a day to stand firmly on the teaching of Scripture and not compromising because of either the derision or the hostility of the world. Let the world say and do what it must, but God's Word stands forever!

'Thank you for the list of scholars supporting Genesis 1-11 and I appreciated reading the commentaries. As a late-in-life believer, my faith received a huge boost of confidence when I started reading the incredible evidence supporting Biblical creation. But, evolution had seemed illogical and impossible to me. even before I became a Christian.

Identifying Evangelical scholars on any issue does not prove the veracity of a given statement. In fact, such activity, in an argument, can be characterized as an appeal to authority or an appeal to educational arrogance. Neither side can claim that their lists of experts constitutes proof, validity, or veracity. The argument must rise and fall on its own merit. neither side gains ground by the inclusion of meaningless lists of names in opposition or in giving assent to an issue. Examine the evidence. Do Whitcomb and Morris present sound and valid arguments in support to a young earth and universal flood? Is the evidence presented reasonable, accurate, or conflated? The standard was set by Luke, who presented "many convincing proofs" to support the conclusion of the Resurrection of Jesus, and the names he sited were eyewitness accounts. Believers, no matter the issue, should not invite negative prejudice to their positions due to poor argumentation methodology. The list of supporters is valid to affirm solidarity, but not as an argument to support a given position. Case in point is this - Gleason Archer, noted evangelical professor and author, did not support a recent creation, nor did C.I. Scofield. The arguments of Archer and Scofield are not to be accepted or rejected because of who they were, but on the merits of their arguments.

This article is not an appeal to authority; reasons are given in the text and in the linked articles from those listed as to why they promote the historicity of Genesis. "The argument must rise or fall on its own merit". I agree, and that is why the arguments are provided here in bountiful plenty (in brief in the text and further in the linked articles).
You seem to think that the argument for biblical creation ends with Morris and Whitcomb. I suggest that you should read rather more widely and more recently (there are over 9,000 items on Creation.com alone; I wonder how many you have read?).
As for Gleason Archer, he was an able defender of biblical inerrancy, but he allowed himself to be intimidated by 'science' and so didn’t believe what he admitted was the most obvious interpretation of Genesis 1, i.e., 24-hour days. He and other advocates of day-ageism are answered fully in Dr Jonathan Sarfati's Refuting Compromise, and briefly in Did God create over billions of years? (the ideas undermine the goodness of God, the basis of the Gospel, and the Bible's teaching re end times, such as the coming new heavens and earth).
Scofield's 'gap theory' has been long-refuted; see Gap theories (Chapter 3, Creation Answers Book) (the gap theory involves very shoddy exegesis and it does not harmonize the Bible with any 'scientific' theory of history anyway).

Genesis has to be read as all other documents that are produced with a specific message in mind.
It further should be interpreted in that manner.
That means that - as eg. all laws that are passed in a ruling institution - the original intent should be the basis of all reading of it.
Nowhere in the whole of Scripture - including with Jesus who would have known best, as He was directly responsible for the act of creation - is the original intent of Genesis that it is to be read as 6 literal days, ever circumvented or relativized.
Modern man in his arrogance has decided he knows better.
Any biblical scholar -such as the highly regarded Rc Sproul - who falters on the issue, should be confronted directly and without waver - as he is out of sync with the original intent as well as the whole of Scripture.
There is no reason today for any biblical scholar to waver on the issue, as the arguments are there for all to see - even scientific proof in large quantities.

Although an evangelical, I understand Garret D's concern regarding some Catholics aligning with evolutionary views. Several years ago our daughter was having some difficulties at her independent Christian school. She expressed some interest in attending a respected Catholic girls school. Given this school's high academic reputation, we requested an interview/school tour with the school registrar. At the time, our daughter was studying earth science and biology, so I asked the registrar whether these subjects were taught from a biblical-creation perspective. The answer was an emphatic 'No!. We teach evolution here.' Having clearly misunderstood the answer I was hoping to hear by 180 degrees, the registrar need not have continued with his presentation. We returned home, fervently prayed about the education issues and our daughter's circumstances, and felt led to leave her at her independent Christian school where biblical-creation was/is taught. Our daughter's issues were eventually overcome, and she excelled within a Christ-centred environment.
This comes back to 1 Thes 21: Test all things; hold onto that which is good.

Doctor Joel D. Heck, Professor of Theology at Concordia University, Austin, Texas, author of the concise book "In the Beginning God:Creation from God's Perspective," defends the historicity of Genesis. He holds a ThM in Old Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity and a ThD in Exegetical Theology from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

Thank you for such a wonderful listing and comments. My son Pieter, a Biblical Creationist Christian, (chaplain at Ivanhoe Grammar ) currently doing his Masters at Ridley College Melbourne and 'holding the line' against the deeply compromised teachers there,
will be pleased to join 4 other Dr Pieter / Peters on the list. I am sending him the list.
Also I have an excellent booklet entitled; ABORTION Open your mouth for the dumb. by Dr Peter Barnes (Sydney). May I suggest CMI add it to their resources ? Published by Banner of Truth Trust.? Revised publishing date 2010. Originally printed 1986.
May God richly bless you all at CMI.

Thanks Jennifer.
Regarding Dr Barnes' booklet on abortion, we very much agree with his stand for the defenceless unborn (see Abortion and euthanasia Q&A). What we stock for sale is determined by how much it relates to our core ministry and if it would be expected to be available from general Christian booksellers.

I was encouraged to read this list of leaders. I would like to add one giant who appears to have been overlooked, and that is Dr. R.C. Sproul, the subject of Tas Walker's article posted on your site in May 2008. Thanks again.

I have a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois. I examined your article to see if anyone from TEDS was mentioned, and I was saddened at the absence. To me, this illuminates a glaring weakness in their program of study, a seriously devastating flaw in their foundation!

Our list is not intended to be exhaustive (it could never be), so the absence of names from a given seminary should not be taken to mean that there are none at that seminary. However, we are not aware of anyone at TEDS who could be added to the list (we would be glad to be informed otherwise).

The information for Dr Francis Humphrey is out of date. He is retired and bedridden due to ALS but still produces a devotional for Peoples Church of Montreal. He wrote a book published last year called Origins and Redemption to which CMI's Dr Jim Mason wrote the foreword. I'm surprised CMI doesn't carry it.

Article now updated, thank-you.
I was not aware of Dr Humphrey's book, which had an April 2013 publication date. I will find out if we have reviewed it with a view to stocking. We do not stock everything that is good and onside; any items added have to be better than what we already have that cover that area (and then we will drop the superseded items).

In Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Pius X explicitly identified Modernist heretics as the ones who argue the Bible has historical and scientific errors.

Catholics comprise 50% of all Christians. If only this 50% actually bothered to read the encyclicals of the popes... after all, they consider him to be Christ's mouthpiece.

It bothers me that so many quote John Paul II as calling evolution "more than a hypothesis" and twist it into "Catholics can believe in evolution." John Paul II was stating a self-evident fact: the "theory" of evolution is more than a hypothesis by nature of it being a "theory." That statement has nothing to do with the truth value of what is called "The Theory of Evolution."

As a Catholic, I find it frustrating that so many Catholics boast of their Church as "keeping up with modern science" and not realizing that's a very dangerous attitude... maybe the Church should deny God's existence! Then they'd *really* be keeping up with "modern science."

It is so obvious to me that Genesis records literal history, and that attempts to make Genesis fit with deep time interpretations, like the gap theory, day age theory, etc. don't fit the Genesis text or the scientific evidence.

The literary (framework) theory is more attractive because it completely divorces Genesis from history/science, so there is no need to try to reconcile Genesis with any evidence or interpretation. I actually used to subscribe to the literary theory before being exposed to biblical creationism.

The new way to interpret Genesis that is becoming more and more popular is the cosmic temple view popularized by John H. Walton in Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology and The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.

I don't subscribe to this theory either, but what is disturbing and gives it an air of credibility is that Walton claims that this view is consistent with near eastern thinking at the time Genesis was written. Recently I read a series of blog posts reviewing the book Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, by E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien. The book highlights how we can totally misread the bible when we read it with western eyes.

I realize that historically both Jews and Christians recognized Genesis as history, and Hebrew scholars such as Professor James Barr recognize Genesis as history, but I'm curious to hear CMI's analysis of the cosmic temple theory.

That these views are quite recent inventions indicates that they are not rooted in the authentic meaning of Scripture. These writers are full of themselves: 2,000 years of scholarship has failed to uncover what they have now invented? Give me a break!
You can read a review of Walton’s ideas here: Review of Walton's Lost World of Genesis 1 (you can find such reviews by using the handy search window on the top right of creation.com).
Such errant views lift Genesis 1 right out of its biblical context and destroy fundamental doctrines that are rooted in the historicity of Genesis 1-11 (not just chapter 1), such as the goodness of God (theodicy), the Gospel (soteriology) and the expected new heavens and earth (eschatology) and 'gut' the Bible of everything that is significant—if people follow through to the logical conclusions.

Dr. Pipa no longer teaches at Westminster California. He has been the president of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary since 1998. The faculty has a comprehensive statement on creation on the seminary website.
[links deleted as per commenting rules]

Catholic priest, theologian and PhD physicist, Rev. Victor Warkulwiz also gave scientific arguments for young-earth creationism, but also he has added a lot of history, philosophy, and theology: A review of The Doctrines of Genesis 1–11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins by Fr Victor P. Warkulwiz.
His work about creation cosmology: Universe without Space and Time: An Essay on Principles for Relational Cosmology Drawn from Catholic Tradition and Empirical Science (published, 2013).
His work about the true meaning of Pope Pius XII's encyclical letter Humani Generis and evolution hypothesis: Humani Generis on Evolution: Reading It Completely and Consistently (published 2013).
[Ed.: external links deleted as per commenting rules]

Concordia Seminary in St. Louis and all schools of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod teach the authenticity of the Biblical Account. It is what ultimately brought me to faith in my late 20's and has held me firmly to God's word even now in my 80's. In Christ, Mike

I don't understand why people don't read Genesis as straight forward as it appears. I've always had the impression that if God did use millions and billions of years in the creation process, it could have been expressed in many ways. There are numerous examples in the bible to express millions of years such as "dust of the earth" (Numbers 23:10), "as sand on the seashore" (Genesis 22:17, 32:12, Isaiah 10:22, Hosea 1:10), and as stars of the heavens (Genesis 15:5, 22:17). But He didn't. Why? Because He created everything in six days and it was recorded that way.

I suppose we that accept that Genesis 1-11 is simply sober history often fall into the Elijah state of mind when he lamented, "I am all by myself in my devotion to your sovereign majesty." We need to be reminded that the Lord has reserved 7,000 in Israel who have not bent the knee to Baal. Thank you for the encouragement. There still are many disheartening moments in too many congregations that are close to universities and that are attended by several academics and students. The temptation to relegate Genesis discussions to cloistered Bible studies is very strong.

As a possibly powerful debating point: (and of course we creationists accept that Genesis is a historical account, and not poetry, but) even if it could be somehow established that Genesis is poetry, then this is still not sufficient to dismiss it as history!
In the famous poem, "The Charge of the Light Brigade", Alfred, Lord Tennyson describes, the real, historical "charge of British light cavalry led by Lord Cardigan against Russian forces during the Battle of Balaclava on 25 October 1854 in the Crimean War". (Wikipedia). Tennyson's poem has the famous lines, "Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die". So literature can demonstrably be both poetry and history.
And in the Bible also, in the generally accepted (acrostic) poetry of Psalm 119, there are numerous references to historical happenings (e.g. verses 10, 13, 53, 62, 67, 63, 66, 69, 71, 74, 75, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 94, 95).
So even for those who wish to insist that Genesis is poetry, it may be thus demonstrated that this is still not sufficient to dismiss Genesis as a historical account. And given that the Biblical genealogies, the Ten Commandments, Luke, Paul, and even Jesus all refer to Genesis as historical, and given the testimonies of James Barr and others, as above, it seems that an understanding of Genesis as real history is well established, whether it can be brought under any sort of definition of poetry or not (obscure or otherwise).

All good points. Another Psalm, 78, is all history.
But Genesis is not poetry anyway, as shown in the first two articles in the Recommended reading. Hebrew has quite different structures for poetry and historical narrative and there Genesis is historical narrative, without any doubt whatsoever.

We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control.

Affiliated Sites

Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.

CMI has offices in Australia, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa and United States of America.